The Times They Are A-Changin (by Diana Butler Bass)
The new political buzzword is change. Every candidate claims to be the change candidate—and every pundit is contrasting "change" with "establishment." In the midst of the change-din, I would like to suggest that there is an important question to ask the candidates: "How will you lead change?"
Harvard leadership professor Ronald Heifetz has identified two major approaches to change: technical fixes and adaptive change. In her fine book, Leadership Can Be Taught, Sharon Daloz Parks describes Heifetz' distinction between the two.
Leaders who change through technical fixes believe that problems can be solved "with knowledge and procedures already in hand." Technical leaders emphasize expertise, education, and experience as key to resolving difficult issues. They also think that solutions to problems already exist. Leaders must employ solid techniques or processes to make things right. In this model, a technical-fix politician would try to convince voters of his or her competence, management skill, and problem-solving track record.
In contrast, adaptive change-type leaders believe that complex problems "require new learning, innovation, and new patterns." In this mode, "leadership is the activity of mobilizing people to address adaptive challenges." According to this leadership theory adaptive problems are "swamp issues," complex problems involving multiple levels of difficulty that elude regular routines and established platforms. According to Parks, adaptive leaders "call for changes of heart and mind—the transformation of long-standing habits and deeply held assumptions and values."
The presidential candidates all talk about change. But they appear to be talking past one another. Adaptive leaders baffle technical leaders. Technical leaders strike adaptive leaders are cold or mechanical. Yet all the candidates—and the media covering them—speak of "change" as if it has a single definition and that merely invoking it can somehow summon the voters' affections. It is not enough to say one is "ready for change" or that "Washington is broken." How do they intend to lead change? Will they change things by tinkering with systems—attempting to fix what already exists? Or do they believe that existing structures have failed and they must grapple with entirely new ways of thinking and open the way for unexpected solutions to arise?
It appears clear that voters are casting their ballots for adaptive leadership. Although adaptive leaders draw on many skills, two of the most significant include "authenticity and integrity" and "inspiring a sense of commonality amidst diversity." The candidates who understand this appear to be winning the larger cultural argument about change: Change is not about skillful technique; rather, change is about transformation, a new way of seeing and being in the world.
And that is a change that people of faith should cheer.
Diana Butler Bass (www.dianabutlerbass.com) writes, speaks, and teaches about adaptive change in mainline Protestant churches. She is the author of Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith (Harper One 2006).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I've been watching the caucus in NH today, and so far, it looks like the voters are agreeing with you.
Posted by: janible | January 8, 2008 4:40 PM
THE ADAPTIVE LEADERS CALL FALLS ON THE U S CONGRESS FOR CHANGE AND THAT IS WHERE THE THE STORY ENDS. ME THINKS THAT WE ARE LEFT WITH THE ONES WHO ARE RUNNING FOR PRES. AND IF THEY ARE ADAPTIVE LEADERS THEN WE WIN, EH?
Posted by: JERRY | January 8, 2008 5:40 PM
That's a very useful distinction. But when you get to the political sphere, you also have those who want to foster an image of change and may even be successful in doing so, but lack substance in either approach. Barack Obama is the prime example of this. He has captured a mood and a way of making people feel hopeful about change, but as near as I can determine he is a solidly establishment person with no substantive interest in change. He sounds like an adaptive change leader, but I can't find any reason to believe that he really is.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | January 8, 2008 8:11 PM
I too quoted this very same Dylan song on my blog today:
LIBERTY, Vanunu, Dylan and Doors
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.-Bob Dylan
On January 7, 2008, I received the following good news from Mordecahi Vanunu:
Hi There,
The news:
The court hearing today postponed. Israel Gov' by their prosecutor agree to change the 6 months prison sentence to community service. Next the prosecutor will discuss with us which community service I will do. So all this trial and sentence for the last 3 years come to nothing.
Wishing you to see me free very soon,
vmjc
Ever since Vanunu was convicted in July 2007 and sentenced to six more months in jail for the interviews he gave foreign media in 2004, this civilian journalist has suffered a guilty conscience because I have been streaming 2005 and 2006 video of Vanunu on my site and YOUTUBE.
I figured if Israel would send Vanunu back to jail for interviews nobody is reading anymore, what would they do to him for videos that are currently freely streaming on the World Wide Web?
the rest:
WAWA Blog January 8, 2008:
LIBERTY, Vanunu, Dylan and Doors
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Posted by: eileen fleming | January 8, 2008 8:32 PM
Don't forget "hope." It's "change" followed by "hope." I remember when I was still in my twenties hearing Gary Hart talk about being the candidate of "new ideas" once too often - until I realized I wasn't hearing any ideas. No content.
Was it Walter Mondale who said "Where's the beef?" Until the Supreme Court's 1976 equation of big money donations by wealthy individuals and corporations with First-Amendment protected free "speech" is overturned - something none of the politicians talk about doing for the obvious reason of their own funding - there's no beef, but there's pork as far as the eye can see in terms of an elaborate tax code written for the benefit of the wealthy and the illusory "free market" which in reality is a market regulated in favor of the rich getting richer.
Paul - originalfaith.com
Posted by: Paul Maurice Martin | January 8, 2008 11:20 PM
NH results absolutely shocking. It appears that Hillary is today's new "inevitable" candidate. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. So much for real change (for now). Very strange year indeed.
Posted by: Cads | January 8, 2008 11:33 PM
Never thought I'd say this, but go Hillary. I have no end of tremendous disagreement with her ideas, but she has put them through the refiners fire. She has had her butt kicked by everyone across the spectrum.
If the election came down to McCain/Lieberman v. Clinton/Biden, I could at least be content knowing that those four people have earned the position they have.
New Hampshire voted for ideas and character over narratives and media appeal. They voted for the ugliest, least charismatic bastards in the whole thing. Good on 'em.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 8, 2008 11:47 PM
I hope that someone on God's Politics will start a thread that's as excited about Hillary as they seem to be about Obama and Huckabee. Hillary is IMHO the most Christian of the three, the one whose policies are most clearly rooted in the social justice of her Methodism. I hope Jim or Brian or Diana or Shane will jump and down for this amazing Christian woman who is truly showing how faith and politics can work together.
Posted by: Ashpenaz | January 8, 2008 11:51 PM
Christians do not lead young women into abortion mills and have them execute their unborn children for no other reason than for their mommy and daddy and have a more unfettered "life." Research Molech worship, and see that the change the Democrats are bringing is taking us backwards in time to the most evil practices devised by mankind.
Posted by: Donny | January 9, 2008 12:30 AM
"Research Molech worship, and see that the change the Democrats are bringing is taking us backwards in time to the most evil practices devised by mankind."
Donny, I don't often respond to your stuff, but maybe you'll engage me for a moment... You know, as a "friendly".
There are many, many Democrats who would not perform the actions you described. They see abortion as a last resort for women who are poor or otherwise unready for children, but would never advies this decision for a loved one.
Now, don't get me wrong, I find this attitude to be utterly dissonant. But God does not regard cognitive dissonance to be tantamount to Molech worship. Worship is a conscious effort, and those who are mistaken about (or have yet to confront) what abortion really is are not engaging in worship.
I approach the abortion issue from an educational perspective. By all accounts, the biggest single event that has curbed abortion is the ability to present a mother with a visual of her child. WHy is this so?
Because people in America recognize that taking human life is the ultimate wrong. I want to put people as close to that conclusion as possible by stripping away judicial interference, red-herring talking points, and anything else that would prevent people from looking this decision straight in the eye.
I am convinced that, given the decision of whether to allow women to eliminate human life, people will eventually respond in the negative. I sincerely believe that rhetoric such as yours delays that decision by allowing people to add layers of insult and derision to their final analysis.
Have the insulting retorts you have received on this blog done anything to change your mind? I didn't think so. As someone who agrees, absolutely, that abortion ought to be illegal, please consider my perspective.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 9, 2008 12:46 AM
I like Obama's adaptive change - and definitely, his ability not to polorize. I'm more tired of the polorization in Washington than anything.
But...what is wrong with also looking at experience also? And at substantive ideas? Can they all not go together?
Much of the sourness in this country is that politicians often speak in exactly these kinds of generalities, with few specifics, and they turn around once they are elected and do the exact opposite of the generalities they spoke so eloquently about.
And so...I also like specifics.
That should NOT in any way imply that I am against Obama or Huckabee. I like both very much. I'm merely thinking out loud.
Shrug...I don't know. Could have a lot to do that my home state doesn't vote until May - and so have lots of luxury others don't have to toss things over in my mind until them. Hey...I'm a swing, indie voter. Idealogues have an EASY time making up their minds. ;)
Okay...I will not be back on this board until Thursday night at least. Have to transfer my "keeper" files off my old computer and onto my new one. So don't think I'm mad or something.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | January 9, 2008 1:06 AM
Well I want change and I don't think change happens unless people demand it, fight for it and can tell the difference between justice and pretty words. The Clintons brought us GAT, NAFTA, extraordinary rendition, denied food and medical supplies to Iraq, and tried to sell a health care plan that left in place a system motivated to deny care. Their ideas have not been good for average or poor Americans.
The rich continued to get richer and the poor poorer. Bill Clinton was far smarter economically and more ethical in managing government than Bush or Reagan, but far from the reform needed to prevent the current debacle of economic growth through the export of exploitation and government by bribery, war and torture.
The most reasonable hope for re-establishing a non-imperial constitutional republic with an army appropriate to our population like France or Britain, universal healthcare, and a policy of peacemaking, removing corporations from government, human rights, environmental sanity, fair trade and genuine support for political freedom and democratic process lies with candidates like Richardson, Kucinich, Edwards, and Ron Paul.
The idea that niceness (Obama's plan) or status quo government by corporate pandering( Clinton's plan) will dramatically change America's course is a West Wing TV fantasy land lie. There will have to be a fight with corporate dominance and political corruption. America will have to stand up to the talk show hate mongers, oil barons, and corporate scam artists. I don't have much hope this change will happen until our lies catch up with us. The 2 party system and the swinging door between incumbency and lobbying is the biggest thing standing in the way of change. Obama, Clinton, Romney, McCain and Guliani are all deeply indebted to sponsors who oppose change and that reality is the pin that deflates all the hot air balloon talk about hope and change.
America is living in a run down house with a bad mortgage and a climbing fuel bill we can barely afford. Without real change it's only a matter of time before the repo man and the foreclosure agent are on the way.
Posted by: jonabark | January 9, 2008 2:01 AM
So - NH votes for the 'same old - same old'.
I have worked for the public and private sector.
For Profit and Not For Profit.
Public and Private Education.
The more people talk about 'change' the more they stay the same. When politicians long range view is clouded by what they need to do to remain in office, it influences their decisions.
I would like to see term limits but that will never happen.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 9:05 AM
I believe the scale of government should not exceed the ehtical capacity of the nation/people. Which looks to me like we ought to have a very small government.
But it also must match the scale of the change and issues confronting humanity, the nations, and all creation. Which looks to me like a very large government.
DBB--Would you also apply the 'two kinds of leaders' model to two kinds of governmental leadership? Can a huge bureaucracy even begin to provide adaptive leadership?
In general the easy response is to say both kinds of leadership are necessary. The President can create the space in which all forms of leadership can emerge. The politics must be of recognizing the limits of political power are not in a fight over who controls--but rather in the expansion of the capacity to lead.
And the President must be able to do this in face of external events that completely interrupt their plans/strategies, a massive entrenched bureaucracy, and an intoxicated public.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 9, 2008 11:08 AM
The change that Obama and Huckabee have been talking about is not just policy change. It is a change in the way the parties interact and people participate. I think there are a lot of people who are excited about the idea of working together not just to compromise, but to synergize; not just to vote, but to take ownership of the process.
They say that a democracy winds up with the government it deserves. I hope we deserve better than the "same old same old."
Posted by: Hali | January 9, 2008 1:43 PM
Those candidates who favor war, abortion and the death penalty may possibly be faith-based, but are not based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Moderatelad, we do have term limits - for President. However, that will not prevent alternating dynasties where different members of the same families continue in an American version of royalty.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | January 9, 2008 3:00 PM
Posted by: Bill Samuel | January 9, 2008 3:00 PM
'...do have term limits...'
I would like to have term limits for Congress too.
Fat Chance - (just like me - LOL)
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 9, 2008 3:08 PM
Jonabark, your post at 2:01 a.m. yesterday was excellent.
Realistically I don't expect many of the changes you mention to happen, unfortunately.
Posted by: astroelmeria | January 10, 2008 5:30 AM
Thank you for your interesting article. With all due respect, I am unable to agree with view of the buzzword
“The new political buzzword is change. Every candidate claims to be the change candidate—and every pundit is contrasting "change" with "establishment." In the midst of the change-din, I would like to suggest that there is an important question to ask the candidates: "How will you lead change?"
I haven't observed the unanimity the with which the aspiring nominees of both major parties had come to use the term change as a buzzword. It is quite possible I have missed this development, and for purposes of this communication I will assume the facts asserted in your article. .
“Change” (or any word or phrase) may be appropriately characterized as a buzzword-in this case in the environment of campaign argumentation and related commentary- if it is used frequently across the environment, it is used standing alone, without additional details about what whoever employs the term means specifically. Finally, no one points out the defective language, seeks elaborations, or manifests an awareness that there is anything wrong with this kind of talk.
This would seem as self evident and uncontroversial. Repeated abstract demands for change without any additional detail by even one candidate would become conspicuously and notoriously preposterous, in short order. The candidates opponents would properly remonstrate with the offender, at first calling for the unarticulated details. If the candidate resisted in the face of such impeccable queries, a course for which there is no legitimate defense, this would, in my view, demonstrate that he was unfit for the office he sought, and the nomination as well.
If all candidates in both parties have taken up this approach, and no commentators have objected but instead mirror it in their writings, this would indicate that the US political has sustained catastrophic damage, far worse than might be inferred from events of the past 7 years. The only change that we can expect from such a system is for the worse.
There are techniques for exposing and debunking fallacious and/or propagandistic rhetoric. Above I described situation in which one candidate was using “change” as described. The term for this would actually be “glittering generality,” a propaganda technique. It is exposed by pointing out that change can refer to almost anything, and asking the speaker explain in a more detailed and specific way, what she means
So I would not ask candidates "How will you lead change?" when they persist in failing to describe the changes they claim they wish to lead.
Posted by: Tom Doyle | January 10, 2008 7:43 AM
"If the election came down to McCain/Lieberman v. Clinton/Biden, I could at least be content knowing that those four people have earned the position they have."
Kevin S., I agree with you most of the way here, except that Hillary will have "earned" her position more by way of who she married rather than by her eight years in the Senate, which, while she's done all right in that position, doesn't hold a candle to the 35-year Senate career of Biden, who should be at the top of the ticket in a normally functioning democracy. (Sorry for the run-on sentence...)
"But God does not regard cognitive dissonance to be tantamount to Molech worship."
Kevin, I can't believe this, but I agree with you on this one, too, in fact your entire post responding to the Molech rant. I thought there was only one person on the face of the earth who thinks legalized abortion is a form of Molech worship, so seeing it here leads me to believe either "Donny" is a pseudonym for a man who lives in central MA, or the Molech line has been distributed on some right-wing talking points somewhere.
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 10:14 AM
While I generally agree with and appreciate DBB's writings, including much of this one, I would choose other Dylan lyrics to describe much of what I hear in this campaign. Rather than the well-worn "Times are a-Changing" I offer the following:
"Idiot wind, blowing out the corners of your mouth"
"It's easy to see without looking too far that all is phony."
"You just want to be on the side that's winning."
"You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows."
"From toy guns that spark to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark, nothing much remains sacred."
"When you gonna wake up? Strengthen what remains."
and to Hillary,
"Now is not the time for your tears."
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 10:25 AM
"I would like to see term limits but that will never happen."
My state adopted term limits in the early 90's and it is destroying the state. I voted against term limits at the time on philosophical grounds, with the rationale that it limits voters' choices and that the vote is the best term limit. However, along with that I must also oppose it on pragmatic grounds: creating and negotiating policy is simply not something that lawmakers can do well without some experience.
My state is experiencing a structural deficit right now because neither the state House or Senate leader has ever served on an appropriations committee or had more than four years in his respective chamber. One third of the entire legislature at any given year is a "freshman."
I urge people to rethink the feel-good fix of term limits, and I hope it never becomes binding on Congress. If you don't like the corruption or complacency exhibited by certain lawmakers, campaign for their opponents. Incumbents do get turned out--it happens quite often.
I support term limits for the executive branch, esp. on the federal level, becasue of the special role that the branch plays and because of the sheer difficulty and expense of running for national office. But legislative branches both federal and state should not have imposed term limits.
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 10:49 AM
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 10:49 AM
I am inclined to agree - but still believe that limits might be good for getting rid of the 'old boys club' and would allow new blood to infuse the system. Should it be just two term limits or should we look at a 3 or 4 term limit? I believe that the destruction that you are wittnessing in your state because of limits we have seen destruction at the national level with congressmembers being in office 40+ years.
There should be a happy medium.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 10, 2008 11:32 AM
Well, again, I think the best way to get rid of the good ol' boys club is through participatory democracy. There are some 30-40+ folks in both parties who are doing some good and provide "institutional memory" to the legislative process, and it's good to have them there. But then there are others who do get turned out when their opponents make a convincing case that they are corrupt or ineffective. In my state, for example, US Rep Guy VanderJagt had been in Congress for decades but was beaten in a primary in '92 by Peter Hoekstra, now ranking Repub of the Armed forces Committee. Tom DeLay, the symbol of corruption in the 21st century, lost the support of Republican voters in his district who decided to hold their nose and vote for a moderate Dem instead. It happened to entrenched Dems too, such as in 1994.
I think you are mistaken about the problems in my state being similar to what we see on the federal level. Our state legislators in Michigan are largely inexperienced in certain areas of policy, and they are not motivated to look at the long term because they will be turned out in a few years. Also, because those running for office cannot reasonably expect to make a career out of politics (and being a career politican is okay if you are comepetent and principled and the voters want you to stay), the folks who really are qualified often choose not to run. The folks who run are often fresh out of grad or law school and seem to see a stint in the state legislature as a way to build up their resume and make contacts. So we've got a generally YOUNG and inexperienced legislature with no memory of how things have worked in the past and with no desire to reach across party lines.
With Congress, on the other hand, it's that same old problem of corruption and entrenchment, but not forced inexperience. I agree things need to change in Washington, but length of term is not the core issue. I would rather see stronger lobbying and earmark reforms for Congress.
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 12:38 PM
I thought there was only one person on the face of the earth who thinks legalized abortion is a form of Molech worship...
It's more common than you might believe. In fact, as long as 20 years ago I actually read that in a local Christian newspaper that I wrote for once in a while.
I ... still believe that limits might be good for getting rid of the 'old boys club' and would allow new blood to infuse the system.
I don't think that's the problem. As a Serbian journalist who worked in my office several years ago through a fellowship observed, this is the only country in the world that runs political campaigns against its own government. Reducing earmarks won't matter either, since (especially) these days we are taught that government should do for us, not us for it. (Perhaps that has to do with the American concept that our nation and our government are in practice separate entities.)
It happened to entrenched Dems too, such as in 1994.
That's not quite what happened there. That year Bill Clinton had infuriated so many conservatives with his tax cuts targeted to the middle class (but raised on the rich) that it induced the GOP to come up with the "Contract with America" -- one legislator in my home state who voted for that lost her seat over it.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 10, 2008 8:32 PM
I am 67 and have been observing politics for all of my adult years. The talk about change is meaningless. There isn't going to be any change. If you think I'm cynical what information from Hillary (the agent of change) do you have to the following questions:
Specifically what changes will she make?
Specifically how will she make the changes?
Specifically when will she make the changes?
Specifically who must cooperate to make the changes?
Specifically who will cooperate to make the changes?
Specifically who will win and who will lose by the changes?
I am not talking about reeling in a lot of prose or political rhetoric. I am talking about specifics, details, facts, dates, times, people.
Just for fun, consider all the promises Nancy Pelosi made in the run up to the 2006 elections? Going to end the war, enact meaningful ethics regulations etc. All gone by the wayside; discarded before the 2006/2007 winter snows had melted.
Peace
Posted by: Jsens | January 10, 2008 9:48 PM
Posted by: I and I | January 10, 2008 12:38 PM
But if term limits work for the Pres. - why not Congress. One reason term limits will not be passed by Congress is that funds that go to the States from the Fed. is based on the length of service of your Senator. You think WV is going to vote Byrd out - they are not going to get rid of that cash-cow.
I think that a two term Senator is OK. (one thing I agreed with Wellstone on - Oh well...) and a three term Rep. I would be willing to go one extra term for each if needed.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 11, 2008 9:09 AM
"That's not quite what happened there."
Thanks, Rick, for holding my feet to the fire about accuracy. I too remember the "contract on America" and was none too pleased about the misleading rhetoric that was going on. I do think many voters thought they were going to "clean up Washington" by "turning out the old guard," however, and a few incumbents did lose their seats. I don't agree with why folks turned out en masse to vote out Democrats, but I think it still holds as an example that it can be done (as an alternative to term limits).
"Just for fun, consider all the promises Nancy Pelosi made in the run up to the 2006 elections? Going to end the war, enact meaningful ethics regulations etc. All gone by the wayside..."
Jsens, not true. Most of those promises were kept. Ethics regulations, minimum wage, just look at the actual list. She didn't say literally that we would end the war, and let's be fair, she did try to get the house to be something other than a blank check but the Senate wouldn't go along.
Posted by: I and I | January 11, 2008 9:15 AM
"funds that go to the States from the Fed. is based on the length of service of your Senator."
That's not formal, though. It may seem that way, but many short-term serving Senators ask for and get pork, and there are many long-termers that don't quite have the appetite for it. Again, earmark reform and lobbying reform, which have bipartisan support, get to the issue more directly.
"You think WV is going to vote Byrd out - they are not going to get rid of that cash-cow."
...but if he were suddenly term-limited, he would just be replaced with another person who strives to bring home the bacon to his state. And the Senate would lose someone who has reached across the aisle MANY times and forged friendships with Republicans, and gotten things done in a bipartisan manner. Not to mention that, whatever you may think of his positions, he has a deep knowledge of how the Senate works (admittedly sometimes for better and sometimes for worse).
Folks don't vote out their own on the basis of pork because while many say they want to shrink federal government, they don't want to shrink the part that benefits them. If democracy isn't working so well in the area of frivolous spending, it's the fault of the people who demand that their reps in Congress squeeze every penny out of the federal government for their own state, rather than do what is good for the country as a whole. And that won't be solved by term limits. (In other words, people like term limits for OTHER peoples' representatives, but not their own.) Term limits is a feel-good whitewash.
Posted by: I and I | January 11, 2008 9:33 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?